Monday, October 24, 2011

Identity-Based ERGs

A couple weeks ago on a list serve/linkedin group, there was a debate about Employee Resource Groups. My personal sentiments at times differ from the standard practice of the majority of corporations and their diversity teams. Other times, it may be me simply being difficult. In this instance, my thinking about ERGs that identify by an exclusive group (i.e. African-American, Latino, LGBT, particular religion, etc.) is that representation of those identities in and of themselves in organizations are important, but less and less lead to believe that most ERGs (a.k.a. affinity groups) focused on a single identity are helpful in the long run for organizations or for those engaged.

My responses to the inquiries and reactions are in italics.


In response to a member asking about starting an LGBT ERG.


It is not a secret how I personally feel about identity-based ERGs. By their nature, I think they are exclusive and have spotty effectiveness in the strategic sense. People will naturally gravitate towards that which is like them at some point or another. Reinforcing this actually can set people up for challenges (i.e. Asians (particularly Chinese) being promoted proportionately to upper management/leadership in technical organizations where they well-represented overall). Of course, marketing segmentation, product differentiation, etc. make sense to me. At the same time I always wonder about the ability of a particular group ERG to engage outside of their group beyond situational engagement that is, in a way, artificially constructed. The key ingredient to whether decisions get made based on particular input--trust--is missing in the equation. It is missing primarily because the out-group (e.g. non-LGBT and perhaps A, in this case) is rarely intimately embedded in the foundational conversations of group establishment. Consciously or unconsciously in-group bias on both sides is reinforced. Further, we get these ERG leaders focused on themselves more than the strategic direction of the company, again setting them up for missing opportunities in the long-term as they don't see the bigger possibilities and responsibilities that their role as a member of an ERG entails (or at least could/should/potentially might entail).

So, the intention is good. On the other hand, where long-term impact is concerned (so-called measurement or data supported justification or not) I am not convinced that in the times we are in now that newly established identity-specific ERGs can have the impact that a broader concept (i.e. inter-generational groups) can.


The responses ranged from people defending the position of ERGs in general to letting me know that, for all intents and purposes, "You are wrong." A summary statement that I thought spoke for most respondents was the following: "Creating these identity based groups creates a sense of place in the company for people who fit a particular affinity. It allows them to have a safe place in a company where most do not look like them and don’t understand their experience. It is a message from the company that they are “present” and that the company understands the uniqueness of their experience. This is very affirming for employees who are not part of the majority. This I can stomach and they in fact could be right." Again, point taken.

Thing is, when we look at the stats and articles such as this:
Is there a bamboo ceiling at American companies? what do we conclude?

One is left wondering how affective these ethnic and other identity-focused ERG really are? Answer is, we really only know by anecdote. And in many instances the ERG has not made much of a dent in dynamics such as these. They either are not tasked to or have not made it a priority. People are more comfortable around other folks like them and very little changes. Perhaps when people are too comfortable, very little changes for individuals or the organizations they serve?

The conversation ended with the potential of an academic study of ERGs. Great outcome!

My conclusion was the following:

Know that there is little in the world that I am flat out opposed to. LGBTA ERGs and ERGs in general included. ERGs make sense, we should have them, we also should be tasked to take the idea of them deeper, this is my intention.

One thing I am allergic to is doing the same things over and over and even when evidence of effectiveness is limited, justifying that which we are attached to for lack of a viable alternative.

This is the situation with ERGs in many cases. There are some great identity-focused ERGs in companies. Some contribute a lot to all of the areas that were shared from 'engagement to safe spaces'. I am less sure of their collective, long-term, impact across the board. . .This is not something "I know" but intuitively and experientially I sense and have seen limited impact other than the generic anecdotal statements that "ERGs are good, they help underrepresented people" and perhaps some ROI anecdotes on a limited basis; yet, have not seen anyone challenge the notion that this is "true" beyond anecdote alone. Are we capable of assessing broad impact beyond a few isolated cases? "Its like a jungle sometimes it makes me wonder. . ."

So, ERGs get a thumbs up in theory! Our collective willingness to question that which we are convinced of or explore alternatives to, gets a "so-so (with the hand vs. a thumbs up)" in practice.


Hopefully, the result of this conversation is another avenue to test hypothesis about this work we call diversity and inclusion. The urgency of our politico-economic situation requires us to go deeper. No time to waste.

Make it a great day!

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

NIH Uncovers Racial Disparity in Grant Awards

It has been a while, but I am back and hopefully consistently so. Thanks to all of you who have encouraged engagement during my hiatus.

Let's explore the impact of disparate funding for black scientists. While studies like this can always be questioned as to method and reliability with over larger sample populations, the fact that the study was published in a reputable journal says that this issue is bigger than one of one race vs. another. This is an American problem. Disparity exists just like diversity does.

The questions are numerous: How well do we understand the impact of these disparities on our ability to compete globally? What is the impact of disparities such as those described in the study to our healthcare system overall?

As we examine the future of health, how science gets done and who does science is critical to our success in the U.S. and in a way globally given the historic impact of U.S. scientists. The conversation has to start even as far back as elementary education. This is significant, let's treat it as much bigger than we can see at present.


Biomedical Research Funding
NIH Uncovers Racial Disparity in Grant Awards

by Jocelyn Kaiser

It takes no more than a visit to a few labs or a glance at the crowd at a scientific meeting to know that African-American scientists are rare in biomedical research. But an in-depth analysis of grant data from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) on page 1015 in this issue of Science finds that the problem goes much deeper than impressions. Black Ph.D. scientists—and not other minorities—were far less likely to receive NIH funding for a research idea than a white scientist from a similar institution with the same research record. The gap was large: A black scientist's chance of winning NIH funding was 10 percentage points lower than that of a white scientist.

For whole article Click Here:

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Medical News: Pro-Bowl Player's Suicide Renews Head Trauma Debate - in Orthopedics, Sports Medicine from MedPage Today

Very interesting article. What stood out was the statement that people responded to Dr. Omalu in a way that immediately tried to discredit him based on his ethnicity: "The National Football League reacted with outrage, demanding a retraction of the paper. "They said I was Nigerian -- what I was doing wasn't science, I was practicing voodoo medicine," he recalled." This is not uncommon and speaks to the lack of consciousness that we exhibit when emotional threats (attachment to the sport of American football) or financial threats (NFL, vendors, broadcasters) are perceived. Dr. Omalu's emotional connection to the sport is likely to be less than mine or if you are a fan, yours. Scientifically, his seemingly extreme statements have to be put into context and examined as the problem is a clear one. Given the escalating dialogue about it over the past few years, it is probably bigger than we think and starts when simple aspirations of a professional sports career germinate.

Medical News: Pro-Bowl Player's Suicide Renews Head Trauma Debate - in Orthopedics, Sports Medicine from MedPage Today